Problem with XP Boot up method after switch to NTFS

I did a switch to NTFS from FAT32 about a month or two ago and since then have noticed a strange, annoying problem. Most of Windows XP does now no longer boot during the splash screen; it now boots after the GUI has loaded! I see 'Welcome' on my screen (displayed since I have no other user accounts than administrator and guest) for about seven seconds, which is about six-and-a-half seconds longer than in FAT32, and this new bootup procedure indeed delays displaying of the Taskbar, and causes some of my program that have Notification icons like SoundMAX (my AC'97's mixer program) and iTouch Configuration (the program which makes onscreen displays with my multimedia keyboard) to not load! In summary, my system, from GUI load to full usage takes 2-3 minutes, whereas under FAT32 it took about 30 seconds (the rest of the time was spent in the splash screen).

Needless to say this is a BIG inconvenience, not knowing when I can use my dang computer, and I've lived with it for two months, but now I'd like to solve it as it's driving me crazy.

I would appreciate it if people could reply to this in my e-mail; send any suggestions to (a riddle to fool the spammers):

"EazyCheeze" <eazycheeze1@idbealunatic.tohavespam> wrote in message news:Xns953E93C20DC0eazycheeze1idbestupi@207.46.248.16...>I did a switch to NTFS from FAT32 about a month or two ago and since then> have noticed a strange, annoying problem. Most of Windows XP does now no> longer boot during the splash screen; it now boots after the GUI has> loaded! I see 'Welcome' on my screen (displayed since I have no other user> accounts than administrator and guest) for about seven seconds, which is> about six-and-a-half seconds longer than in FAT32, and this new bootup> procedure indeed delays displaying of the Taskbar, and causes some of my> program that have Notification icons like SoundMAX (my AC'97's mixer> program) and iTouch Configuration (the program which makes onscreen> displays with my multimedia keyboard) to not load! In summary, my system,> from GUI load to full usage takes 2-3 minutes, whereas under FAT32 it took> about 30 seconds (the rest of the time was spent in the splash screen).>> Needless to say this is a BIG inconvenience, not knowing when I can use my> dang computer, and I've lived with it for two months, but now I'd like to> solve it as it's driving me crazy.>> I would appreciate it if people could reply to this in my e-mail; send any> suggestions to (a riddle to fool the spammers):>> exaxzxyxcxhxexexzxex1 at cox.net and take out the x's in my handle.>> Thank you SO much in advance. I really appreciate it.

"EazyCheeze" <eazycheeze1@idbealunatic.tohavespam> wrote in message news:Xns953EC7D6084F3eazycheeze1idbestupi@207.46.248.16...> "Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvpsAM.org> wrote in news:uTC8prLfEHA.3612> @TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:>>> Do start->run->cmd [enter]>>>> then>>>> chkdsk>>>> ignore any errors. What does it report the cluster size as being?>>>> 111997115 KB total disk space.> 84453680 KB in 184319 files.> 74136 KB in 11706 indexes.> 0 KB in bad sectors.> 269119 KB in use by the system.> 65536 KB occupied by the log file.> 27200180 KB available on disk.>> 4096 bytes in each allocation unit. <- Here, I believe.> 27999278 total allocation units on disk.> 6800045 allocation units available on disk.

> Yes, that's the cluster size. Generally, after a fat to NTFS> conversion the cluster size is 512B rather than 4K. That can cause a> hefty performance hit relatively speaking.> > Have you defragged since the conversion?>

"EazyCheeze" <eazycheeze1@idbealunatic.tohavespam> wrote in message news:Xns953ECAC11E78Eeazycheeze1idbestupi@207.46.248.16...> "Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvpsAM.org> wrote in> news:uTMygCOfEHA.3520@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:>>> Yes, that's the cluster size. Generally, after a fat to NTFS>> conversion the cluster size is 512B rather than 4K. That can cause a>> hefty performance hit relatively speaking.>>>> Have you defragged since the conversion?>>>> Yes, many times.

> Generally only one defrag is necessary immediately after a conversion > followed by a wait of a few days then a final defrag. Excessive> defragging can cause performance hits.> > I'm mulling a couple of potentials, however once the machine is up and> running how does it feel relatively speaking?>

Quite well, as much as I'd expect. Of course I have a little difficulty judging when's the best time to start computing, but after that, I don't have any real dragging. Smooth sailing, only it's quite bumpy launching, as I've said.

It's been a lllooonnnnggg time ago since I did a fat to NTFS conversion and that was on a partition less than a 10th of size you did. Looking at the numbers though you went from a 32K fat32 cluster to 4K cluster. Typically, the 4K cluster will yield better performance due to the fact that it matches the hardware page size on x86 platforms and typically reduces the amount of data being read from HD surface. Random consideration: for pure sequential processing larger clusters tend to outperform smaller clusters. During system initialization, once the system optimization routines have kicked in after a few days, the larger cluster can be of benefit during system initialization.

However, placement of some of the on surface HD structures for NTFS can be different and less than optimal when doing an in place conversion, in particular the MFT (master file table) and if that is fragmented or positioned incorrectly you can take performance hits, especially during startup when the OS is still buffering things ups.

What tool are you using to defrag? If the MS supplied defrag be aware that it does not defrag the MFT. It takes 3rd party defraggers and even then not all will defrag the MFT. As an option, and judging by the amount of data you currently have this will take a while, you can back up the drive format it as NTFS then reload it.

"EazyCheeze" <eazycheeze1@idbealunatic.tohavespam> wrote in message news:Xns953ED9365B892eazycheeze1idbestupi@207.46.248.16...> "Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvpsAM.org> wrote in> news:OoTyjiOfEHA.3204@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:>>> Generally only one defrag is necessary immediately after a conversion>> followed by a wait of a few days then a final defrag. Excessive>> defragging can cause performance hits.>>>> I'm mulling a couple of potentials, however once the machine is up and>> running how does it feel relatively speaking?>>>> Quite well, as much as I'd expect. Of course I have a little difficulty> judging when's the best time to start computing, but after that, I don't> have any real dragging. Smooth sailing, only it's quite bumpy launching, > as> I've said.